Why a separate page?
I feel like all this really adds to Wiktionary:Usernames and user pages is two things:
- [Custom signatures] must not include templates. This applies whether or not the templates are subst:'d.
- [Custom signatures] must not be overly long or complex, either on the discussion page (where the emphasis should be on the comment, not the signature) or in the edit-window (where they can interfere in various ways with other users' ease of editing).
It also adds lots of rationale, but my impression from the Beer-parlour discussion is that most editors don't agree with all of that rationale; and it adds links to Wikipedia, but we already have enough problems with people confusing us with Wikipedia.
I know I'm not seen as a fan of brevity and conciseness, but I think this might be one case where I'll have to depart from my established windbag persona.
I completely disagree with the draft proposal not to include them, on the following basis:
- The fact that they are a target for vandals is complete rubbish. Firstly, most vandals will not understand how to get to your sig page. Secondly, many non template signatures also have a "signature page" from which the text is transcluded. Thirdly, the page they user will come to if they did try to vandalize the signature would the "first signature page" - one would be required to alter the second signature page in order for all the signatures already passed to be changed.
- There has never been any reported problem before with page archiving and template sigs on Wiktionary.
- The idea of templates being a "small but unneccessary drain on the servers" contradicts one of the fundamental rules of Wiktionary and Wikipedia - that they are not limited by paper.
Oppose as written
This isn't policy yet, and I would like to oppose it ever being policy. It is far too restrictive of users. Users should be allowed to link to pages other than user and usertalk, to either just user or just usertalk, or no pages at all. I also believe users should be allowed to use templates in their signatures if the templates are protected. Furthermore, there needs to be a plank in here that refactoring another user's signature for any reason is inappropriate. Purplebackpack89 16:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)